Bryant v. Eagleton et al

Filing 95

ORDER adopting 83 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks; finding as moot 87 Motion to Compel; granting 35 Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 3/27/2014.(ssam, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Thomas T. Bryant

) Civil Action No. 2:13-1045-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Warden W. Eagleton; AW R. McFadden;
)
)
and Nurse Supervisor A. Smith,
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________ )
Plaintiff Thomas T. Bryant (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional rights were violated due to Defendants’ deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs while he was an inmate at the Evans Correctional
Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. (ECF No. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff
contends he did not receive his medical supplies for a period of seven days. In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”). The matter is before the Court for review of the Report recommending that Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 35) be granted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2013, Defendants Eagleton, McFadden and Smith (“Defendants”) filed a
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 35.) Since Plaintiff is pro se in this matter, the Court
entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on August 28,
2013, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an
adequate response. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff was granted two extensions of time to respond to the

motion for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 40, 58), and filed his response in opposition on November
14, 2013 (ECF No. 64), and a supplemental response on November 18, 2013. (ECF No. 69.) On
February 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hendricks issued a Report recommending that Defendants’
motion for summary judgment be granted as to Defendants McFadden and Eagleton because the
doctrines of vicarious liability and respondeat superior are generally not applicable in § 1983 actions.
(ECF No. 83 at 6.) The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment to Defendant
Smith having determined that Plaintiff’s allegations do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference
and that Defendant Smith is entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 83 at 11.)
DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which
a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for
clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court
need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on
the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”) (citation omitted).
The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.
(ECF No. 83 at 13.) Plaintiff filed a document with the Court titled “Objection to Report and
-2-

Recommendation” (ECF No. 89) in which he asked for additional time to respond to the Report and
Recommendation. Construing Plaintiff’s filing as a motion for extension of time, the Court granted
Plaintiff until March 14, 2014 to make his submission. Plaintiff sought another extension (ECF No.
92) and this Court granted Plaintiff until March 26, 2014 to make any additional submissions. (ECF
No. 93.) Plaintiff filed no further objections or sought any further extensions of time and the time
for doing so has now expired.
In an abundance of caution, however, the Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s March 4, 2014
“Objection to Report and Recommendation” and supporting documentation in light of the applicable
standards and with particular attention to Plaintiff’s allegations concerning Defendant Smith.
Although Plaintiff continues to allege generally that Defendant Smith denied him medical supplies
and seemingly challenges her affidavit and the accuracy of medical records submitted therewith, he
fails to make any specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Failure
to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including
appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n. 4 (4th Cir.1984). Plaintiff’s “objections,” to the extent they can be
construed as such, do not alert the Court to matters which were erroneously considered by the
Magistrate Judge. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge prepared an extensive and detailed
Report and appropriately addressed Plaintiff’s claims.

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge

acknowledged that Defendants presented evidence that Plaintiff received the medical supplies at
issue but assumed, for the purposes of review on summary judgment, that Plaintiff in fact went
without his medical supplies during the relevant time period. (ECF No. 83 at 9.) In doing so, the
Magistrate Judge considered Plaintiff’s statements as the equivalent of an opposing affidavit for
summary judgment purposes.

Still, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiff’s
-3-

allegations do not amount to deliberate indifference. Accordingly, the Court, accepts the
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the motion and responses, the record, the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge, and the “objections” of Plaintiff, the Court finds no error. Accordingly, the
Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 83) by reference into this
order. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35) is
GRANTED, and this case dismissed. Any remaining motions are rendered MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
March 27, 2014

-4-